We are committed to expanding our electronic transfer capacity for medical records through ongoing expansion of the use of Health Information Technology. As used in the subpart— Acceptable medical source means a medical source who is a: 1 Licensed physician medical or osteopathic doctor ; 2 Licensed psychologist, which includes: i A licensed or certified psychologist at the independent practice level; or ii A licensed or certified school psychologist, or other licensed or certified individual with another title who performs the same function as a school psychologist in a school setting, for impairments of intellectual disability, learning disabilities, and borderline intellectual functioning only; 3 Licensed optometrist for impairments of visual disorders, or measurement of visual acuity and visual fields only, depending on the scope of practice in the State in which the optometrist practices; 4 Licensed podiatrist for impairments of the foot, or foot and ankle only, depending on whether the State in which the podiatrist practices permits the practice of podiatry on the foot only, or the foot and ankle; 5 Qualified speech-language pathologist for speech or language impairments only. The commenters stated that medical evidence should be provided solely by medical professionals and suggested that prior administrative medical findings are not made by medical sources. The final rules include sufficient guidance to adjudicators in determining when this situation exists. Report tele-marketing companies Inform the other users about the tele-marketing companies which tries to sell very low quality products to a very high price.
Response: We appreciate the question and the opportunity to clarify that we are not requiring two separate findings. Since our final rules require us to consider the combined effect of an individual's impairments, we are adopting the text as proposed in final 404. Response: We carefully considered these comments, and we are adopting them. When an individual informs us about another government agency's or nongovernmental entity's decision, we will identify and consider, or will assist in developing, the supporting evidence that the other agency or entity used to make its decision. As we state in final 404. Under current and final 404. When, in our judgment, your medical source is qualified, equipped, and willing to perform the additional examination or test s for the fee schedule payment, and generally furnishes complete and timely reports, your medical source will be the preferred source for the purchased examination or test s.
Consistent with that approach, proposed and final 404. Not Safe If you see a number listed with this label, it means an OkCaller user has labelled the number as a problematic contact. Comment: Two commenters asked whether individuals and their representatives would need to submit evidence of a disability, blindness, or employability decision by another governmental agency or nongovernmental entity to us because our rules would state these decisions are inherently neither valuable nor persuasive to us. In response to these and other public comments, both the title and definition of this category of evidence is different from that which we proposed. Because the evidence listed in paragraphs c 1 through c 3 of this section is inherently neither valuable nor persuasive to the issue of whether you are disabled or blind under the Act, we will not provide any analysis about how we considered such evidence in our determination or decision, even under § 404. The commenter also said that we should apply the proposed new policies about decisions from other governmental agencies and nongovernmental entities and about statements on issues reserved to the Commissioner to all claims.
A medical practice would not be able to perform a consultative examination at our request, or provide a medical opinion about an individual's functional abilities or limitations. Another commenter raised concern that requiring State agency adjudicators to provide written analysis about the persuasiveness of the prior administrative medical findings from the initial level of review appeared to conflict with the principles of getting a new and independent review. Response: We did not adopt this comment because our current practice is consistent with the Act's requirements that we make every reasonable effort to obtain evidence from all of an individual's medical sources. The final rules do not categorize individuals based on their characteristics or deprive an individual of a protected property interest. For example, adjudicators can currently find a treating source's medical opinion is not well-supported or is inconsistent with the other evidence and give it little weight, while also finding a medical opinion from an examining source, such as a consultative examiner, or nonexamining source, such a medical or psychological consultant, is supported and consistent and entitled to great weight.
This change clarifies our original intent. Response: We did not make any specific changes based on these comments. We added regulatory text in final 404. Response: The increasing complexity in cases and voluminous files were not reasons that we provided in support of moving away from the treating source rule. We may choose not to seek additional evidence or clarification from a medical source if we know from experience that the source either cannot or will not provide the necessary evidence. The commenter also recommended that we consider the consistency and treatment relationship with the claimant factors equally.
I told him I don't buy anything from anyone that calls on the phone. As we noted earlier in the preamble, our goal in these final rules is to continue to ensure that our adjudicative process is both fair and efficient. We are moving away from the treating source rule to align our policies more closely with the ways that people receive healthcare today. Response: We understand the commenter's concerns that we should not disadvantage individuals with mental and headache-related impairments, and these clarifications of our current policy will not change how we establish these medically determinable impairments. These final rules clarify some existing policies and revise others for increased transparency and balance. Because we are moving away from applying the treating source rule for all medical sources, we are not expanding the treating source rule to give controlling weight to nonmedical sources like teachers.
Prior administrative medical findings are evidence in the current claim. In light of the level of articulation we expect from our adjudicators, we do not believe that these final rules will result in an increase in appeals or remands from the courts. As a result, our adjudicators have used a wide variety of terms, such as significant, great, more, little, and less. When we receive a document from a medical source that contains multiple categories of evidence, we will consider each kind of evidence according to its applicable rules. This is our current policy in current 404. In fact, these final rules enhance the current requirements in several ways, such as requiring articulation about medical opinions from all of an individual's medical sources, making consistency and supportability the most important factors, and clarification of the factors themselves. Nevertheless, as explained above, our adjudicators will consider the relevant supporting evidence underlying the other governmental agency or nongovernmental entity's decision.
A few commenters believed that the proposed rule would reduce our articulation burden and would increase inconsistency in how we evaluate individuals. Among our existing employees are dedicated teams that provide in-house training and software enhancements for all of our regulatory revisions. Response: We are not adopting this comment because the factors for considering medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings relate to the persuasiveness of the evidence presented, not to the financial status of the individual. The evidence in your case record must be complete and detailed enough to allow us to make a determination or decision about whether you are disabled or blind. The supportability and consistency factors provide a more balanced and objective framework for considering medical opinions than focusing upon the factors of consistency and the medical source's relationship with the individual. As we discussed at length above, we expect that the changes we are adopting in these final rules will further the fair and timely administration of our programs.